Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alanna Thain
Inflexion:
a tendency that precedes
not the obscure not the unformed
but that which is apprehended as it is transformed
a creative in-between* Inflexions:
an in-between journal of transformative tendency
at the creative crossroads of philosophy, art, and technology1
How /Now
At the start of his essay in this issue, “Clone your technics: Research-creation, radical empiricism
and the constraints of models” Andrew Murphie makes a claim for the ‘how’ of research-
creation: “Although ‘research-creation’ often feels dramatically experimental - and is genuinely
exciting - it is not unusual. Not only is all research research-creation but research-creation is a
common cultural condition, even if traditional institutions sometimes pretend otherwise.”
Minding the gap of research-creation involves attention to the ongoing everydayness of the
Minding the gap points to the generative nature of compositions, rather than simply exploring
the end points of connections. All the essays collected here are attentive to the practice of
composition as both a bringing together and as the lived and creative reality of the composition
itself.Alfred North Whitehead, defining creativity as the principle of novelty (in a quote that
moves between essays), describes composition as the creation of ‘novel entities’: “at once the
togetherness of the ‘many’ which it finds, and also […] one among the disjunctive ‘many’ which it
leaves. The many become one, and are increased by one”. 3 Research-creation minds and mines
that extended moment between these two.
Betweeness: the question of movement is at the heart of any inquiry into research-creation, but a
movement from one to another is not what is at stake here, but rather the question of what it
As part of our work, Inflexions seeks to engage in what Deleuze and Guattari call the “modest
task of a pedagogy of the concept, which would have to analyze the conditions of creation as
factors of always singular moments”.5 As Murphie notes, cloning technics is one such practice—
in making technics available for other attempts, what is made apparent is the ‘differential
repetition’ produced—a singularity. The question of research-creation does not seek to
understand how these modes relate to each other, but instead to operate in the “reality of the
excluded middle”, to linger in the indiscreet gap between them, to make resonant and mobile the
eventness of their sensible connection. Research-creation explores becoming, which more than
any object is what art is, is what concepts do—it puts the movement back into thought. Another
word for becoming is ‘relational potential’, what Erin Manning describes in her essay as
“encounters with emergent environments from which relations or articulations are born”. A
critical example of such an environment is the body itself. The body as the “locus of research-
creation” is a recurrent theme in these essays, its creative potential understood as the double
becoming of affecting and being affected.
Inflexions emerges from a series of “relational environments” that took place and continue to
unfold here in Montreal. In part the journal responds to Derek McCormack’s question from his
essay here: “How to make after the event sense of the processual, relational affectivity of a
movement, a gesture, the playful use of an apparently useless object, the movement of the body
when talking about movement, or the touch of a hand given over to the response of another?”
Part of an ongoing series of experiments in research-creation, Technologies of Lived Abstraction,
two workshops in Montreal—Dancing the Virtual (May 2006) and Housing the Body (August
2007)—sought to develop techniques that provoked and made sensational a “movement of
thought”. As Manning describes this: “Thought in motion is a creative proposition for thought at
work”. These events were attempts to activate the virtual, practical séances that explored the
pressures of enabling constraints as that which forces creativity to emerge as a line of flight. In
some ways, they can be imagined as “unthought experiments”, methods for thinking-feeling the
virtual. A central concern in these events was precisely this question not only of “after the event
sense”, or a recognition, but how to practically continue the work of research-creation, or what
Manning calls “making multiple sense”. Inflexions is part of the attempt to imagine the
experience of these discrete events as acts of ongoing transformation. The essays that follow are
themselves attempts at research-creation, activating the sense of essays not as objects but as
images of thought, themselves eventful—as essaying, or trying, an activity that always contains
within itself the (productive) possibility of failure.
This issue opens with a challenge to expanding our habitual recognition of what counts as
“academic thought”. Andrew Murphie’s “Clone your technics! Research creation, radical
empiricism and the constraints of models” claims with outrageous practicality: “all research is
research creation”, that is to say, “an assemblage to produce the new”. In exploring the ‘how’ of
research-creation, Murphie argues that although this type of experimentation is not itself new,
the moment is now for beginning to identify certain key ways in which a type of research-creation
we might want is coming into view. The ‘how’ for Murphie is a question of technics, the creation
of an immanent order, the semblance of a ‘truth of a variation’ that emerges when attention is
In short, McCormack’s essay asks us to pay attention to the ontogenetic possibilities inherent
when wandering turns to wondering, as a stretching out of affective response to novelty that can
“move thinking otherwise”. How wandering provokes wondering as a movement of thought calls
attention to the ways in which the bodily practices of geography, of fieldwork, of immersive
experience of the world and an “an affective investment in a range of bodily practices and
competencies: walking, seeing, touching” are all too often short circuited by the disciplinary
demands of an unstable discipline fearful of falling off balance. “Straddling” disciplines,
geography has sometimes sought to resist inflections as the errant pull of the body in motion,
seeking stability. McCormack instead suspends “the imperative of sense-making as a process of
interpretive, after-the-movement signification. And shifts to sense-making as a generative pre-
representational process,” touching here upon a central question of research-creation—what are
Stamatia Portanova’s “Infinity in one step: on the compression and complexity of a movement of
thought” turns our attention towards the potential of a different discipline of bodily training—
that of dance—in order to reimagine balancing not as a fear of falling but as a way of imagining the
“body-mind event of an idea”. This “meta-stability” is the creative action of the fold, explored
here in the light of Deleuze’s reading of Leibniz and seeking to understand the parallel elasticity
of matter and thought. For Portanova, dance, here in the form of Nora Heilmann’s Blindspot, is
mode of folding that shows the “impossibility of separation between movement and thought”: a
balanced form of expression. By balance, Portanova is not describing stasis, but borrowing a
term from Manning, the ‘pre-acceleration’ of a qualitative movement that makes sensational
those micro-movements that usually go unnoticed. To understand this balance, Portanova draws
on Deleuze and Guattari to understand creation as a compositional possibility, a mode of
balancing that allows for an autonomy of creation as a kind of becoming- environment. For
instance, to stand on one leg, the best way to stay in what only “appears” as a static pose is not to
concentrate on rigidifying the body, but to expand relation such that the floor, gravity and the air
around you become part of the compositional effort. The effort or thought of relation is thus, as
Portanova reminds us, “always of a collective nature”. Like Manning, Portanova is less interested
in creation as the work of a individual and more of a “becoming-environment”: “When you
think, you not only collaborate with other subjects and with the different temporal instances of
your own self; you always collaborate with a whole environment.” Thus the dancer Pierre in
Heilmann’s piece moves with the wall before ever taking a first step, a ‘technic’ (as in Murphie) of
“differential repetition” or re-pli-cation in which the wall is no longer just a surface to move
against but is repeatedly reengaged in its potential: “the clear perception of the wall is therefore
Art brings back out the fact that all form is necessarily dynamic form. There is really no
such thing as fixed form – which is another way of saying that the object of vision is
virtual. Art is the technique for making that necessary but normally unperceived fact
perceptible, in a qualitative perception that is as much about life itself as it is about the
Alanna Thain “Affective Commotion: Minding the Gap in Research-Creation” 9
Inflexions 1.1: “How is Research-Creation?” (May 2008) www.inflexions.org
things we live by. Art is the technique of living life in -- experiencing the virtuality of it
more fully, living it more intensely.
While the challenges and excitement of new media art have led to a turning away in some
quarters from the question of aesthetics, Massumi argues that questions of form become even
more relevant in the light of these changing definitions of art:
How do you speak of form when there is the kind of openness of outcome that you see in
a lot of new media art, where participant response determines what exactly happens?
When the artwork doesn’t exist, because each time that it operates the interaction
produces a variation, and the variations are in principle infinite? When the artwork
proliferates? Or when it disseminates, as it does when the work is networked, so that the
interaction is distributed in time and space and never ties back together in one particular
form?
As such, Massumi wants us to open our eyes to an abstract movement of the aesthetic event, one
that requires a seeing with and through actual form. Form is understood here as the apparition of
potential in present experience, a doubled vision of both the object and a lived relation: “The
potential we see in the object is a way our body has of being able to relate to the part of the world
it happens to find itself in at this particular life’s moment”. To see in this way is not just to see an
object but an event, which is fully real movement, in the sense that the virtual is fully real,
because “something has happened: the body has been capacitated. It’s been relationally
activated.”
This double vision of aesthetic experience is an opening to relationality via technique: “when
you’re getting there technically, I think it’s because you’ve shifted the emphasis from interaction
to lived relation, and are starting to find ways of operating on the qualitative level of thinking-
feeling, where you are pooling styles of being and becoming, not just eliciting behaviors”. These
are what Manning and Massumi call “techniques of relation”, techniques that seek to expand
potential via the virtual. As Massumi critically argues: “it is only because relation is virtual that
there is any freedom or creativity in the world”.
Notes
1
From the Inflexions statement of purpose.
2
Deleuze 1994, 121.
3
Whitehead 1978, 26.
4
See Bergson 1998 and 1991.
5
Deleuze and Guattari, 1994, 12.
6
See Deleuze 1993, Cache 1995, Manning 2008 (forthcoming).
7
Cache 1999, 26.
Works Cited
Bergson, Henri. Matter and Memory. Translated by Nancy Paul and W. Scott
Palmer. New York: Zone Books, 1991.
Cache, Bernard. Earth Moves: The Furnishing of Territories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.
Deleuze, Gilles. The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque. Trans. Tom Conley. Continuum:
New York, 1993.
Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari. What is Philosophy? Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and
Graham Burchill. New York: Verso, 1994.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality. New York: Free Press, 1978.
Thanks to the entire editorial collective and everyone who worked on and contributed to this
issue. Thanks to Brian Massumi and Erin Manning for creating and sustaining pods of research-
creation here in Montreal, and to all the members of the Sense Lab who make it an exciting and
experimental “relational environment”. For the “Nodes” section of this issue, special thanks is
due to Stamatia Portanova and Nasrin Himada for their editorial assistance, enthusiasm and
ideas. Thanks also to Celine Pereira, Caroline Krzakowski and Sara Yousefnejad for their help
with translations and editing, and to Ayesha Hameed for her web design talents. Thanks also to
our managing editor Felix Rebolledo, to Natasha Prévost and Christoph Brunner for editing the
“Tangents” section, to Troy Rhoades and Bianca Scliar, and lastly to Christine Shaw and Paul
Melançon for helping with the earlier conception of this project.